Pages

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

One of the things I get annoyed by regularly
is the mis-characterisation of a lot of WiFi use on smartphones / tablets as
"offload".

In my view, true
"offload" is a term only applicable to data which would otherwise
have transited a cellular network, and which has been deliberately
pushed to WiFi at a public hotspot, with the intervention of a service
provider.

It is very different to
"private WiFi" use, where the user has unilaterally decided to
connected to a network (for example at home or office) of their own volition,
or because a venue or other sponsor has made WiFi access available.

Care also needs to be taken about
elasticity - user behaviour may change when on WiFi, even with "proper
offload" - if the connection is cheaper or (more often) free/unmetered. At
that point, a notional volume of traffic X that might be used on mobile might
become 2X or 10X when on WiFi. This could be because of a shift in user
perception ("Hmm, yes I will watch Game of Thrones streamed on my
phone"), or it could be because an app-developer has created a different
experience when connected to WiFi (eg auto-playing video, or enabling downloads
of updates).

[Sidenote: connectivity is not
"all the same" - both users and developers make very different
decisions when a device is on WiFi vs. 3G/4G. People & apps/OSs are aware
of, and care about, the type of network which they're connected to. The notion
that it doesn't matter is a core fallacy behind the notion of so-called
"seamless" HetNets and integrated infrastructure]

In other words, only a tiny
fraction of smartphone WiFi use can be called "offload" with any
reasonable definition. I'd estimate that it's well under 5% globally, and
probably under 10% of phones' WiFi usage even on those networks which have
extensive operator-driven offload implemented. For tablets, the numbers will be
lower still, as the majority are non-cellular and therefore can never
"offload", while even mobile-enabled ones are mostly non-activated or
primarily used in static locations with private WiFi.

But there is another trend
emerging in parallel to "real offload" that will make the numbers
even more confusing.

In some cases, people or applications
might deliberately switch to cellular from WiFi, for example if the WiFi
network is congested, coverage is poor, or there are localised authentication
problems. In other words, we will see "offload" from both
cellular-to-WiFi AND WiFi-to-cellular. It may be that one direction of
this gets referred to as "onload". It may also be that the
WiFi-to-cellular onload is larger in volume. This would mostly driven by
users' deliberate switching, but perhaps also by WiFi-primary policy clients on
devices, for example from services provided by cable operators.

Takeouts from this:

Be skeptical of most alleged "WiFi
offload" figures - they're usually nonsense

Most smartphone WiFi usage is private -
traffic that would never have used cellular anwhere

Be aware that WiFi/cellular onload happens, as
well as cellular/WiFi offload

Claims that "nobody cares which network
they are on" are either ignorant or duplicitous

View all discussions of cellular/WiFi
combinations through the lens of WiFi-primary users as well as
cellular-primary viewpoints

Friday, June 12, 2015

It describes it as "a new, LTE-based technology that solely operates in unlicensed spectrum, and doesn’t require an 'anchor' in licensed spectrum"This is a very different proposition to the other type of LTE-U, called LAA (licence-assisted access), which requires a provider to "anchor" the service in a separate (licensed) band. That has proven very controversial in recent months, with fears that its coexistence with WiFi in the 5GHz band could prove damaging, with extra interference. There are claims and counterclaims there, with both technical and "moral" viewpoints.But I've been critical of LAA for another reason - I think it is potentially anti-competitive, as it is only usable by operators that have (paid) spectrum for other LTE networks. It could be seen as a way of extending an oligopoly position into an adjacent marketplace, as inevitably its use in a band reduces theoretical capacity available to others, even if it behaves "politely".

My view of unlicenced-band cellular has been that it should be available to all to implement, in the same way that WiFi is. At least in concept, MuLTEfire is what I'd envisioned when I first thought about unlicenced 4G.

Fully-open unlicenced LTE has some rather interesting possibilities. By decoupling LTE from the constraints of licenced spectrum - and, ideally, without a SIM card or with some sort of soft- or programmable SIM - then we could see a set of revolutionary new business models. For example, it would become possible for venues to offer "free 4G" to visitors, or for all sorts of novel "anti-roaming" propositions to be provided. We could also see true "private cellular" networks - which have already been proven in concept by the use of light-licensed GSM guard-bands and pico/femtocells in the UK and Netherlands.

Obviously, any company considering its deployment could equally-well use WiFi in the same places. But LTE-U in MuLTEfire might allow easier roaming, especially in devices which don't have SIM-based WiFi capabilities enabled.There are also all sorts of interesting options for hybrid MVNOs/MNOs, neutral-hosts for indoor coverage, and a bunch of other concepts I've got at the back of my mind.In particular, given this is cellular technology, it is actually much more aligned with the notion of "seamless" connection than the WiFi is. I'm a deep skeptic of integration of WiFi with cellular, as it introduces too many compromises in terms of user choice and policy/preference conflicts.Qualcomm's timing here is very interesting - the FCC has been asking for submissions about LTE-U / LAA, with the initial comments also due yesterday. And there's a big spectrum management event in Brussels next week - I'm presenting on Tuesday afternoon and will be mentioning LTE-U on a panel which also includes a Qualcomm speaker.

Now clearly, a lot depends on the details (eg IPR costs, whether the coexistence works as billed) and whether the project gets traction. But for a mobile-industry giant such as Qualcomm to even suggest a SIM-free variants of cellular is a major step forward, and one that I've been advocating for years.

Thursday, June 04, 2015

In recent months, I've been drilling into the new "hot topic" of contextual comms. Martin Geddes & I are so enthused by the topic that we're running a workshop on June 15th in London (details here), and we're already considering follow-ups, maybe in the US later in the year.We're combining both the "here & now" of context with a view on where we might be heading in the medium-to-longer term. Martin wrote a very forward-looking and provocative piece on the possible future recently (here).

I'm really interested in what "contextual communications" means to everyone else. There's no fixed definition at the moment, and I suspect that we're going to get an "Olympic Rings" multi-way Venn diagram. Some views of context will overlap, while others will be miles apart. For instance, I've seen or heard all of these described as Contextual Comms:

Sending web-form info to an contact-centre agent during "click to call"

Embedding video/telepresence into a robot

Using mic & speakers on a phone to map out a room acoustically & tweak the echo/noise processing

Use a media-server to analyse a caller's tone (eg angry vs. happy) or facial expressions, and adjust the experience or script for a salesperson

Using a device orientation sensor to work out if a phone is flat on a table, or help to the ear, and adust the UI accordingly

Using machine-learning and analytics to assess the best time to call someone

Mechanisms for indicating the purpose of a call

Embedding a call into a timeline or activity-stream interface for UC and collaboration, so it can be recorded, captured & seen alongside text commentary or speech analytics

I'm sure there are dozens more as well. I'm looking forward to distilling some sort of map or ontology, so we can collectively understand this new landscape a bit more clearly. Is it one thing with lots of variants? Or 5 separate trends with a little overlap?Do YOU have a good example or definition of Contextual Comms? I'd love to hear from you, either via a comment here, or by doing an interview briefing.And if you'd like to talk about it publicly, we're offering all the workshop attendees an chance to present or demo their view - basically an "open mic" section of the day to showcase their unique take on context.If you'd like more detail about the event, or to get in touch separately about context, please comment, see this page to book a spacea, or email information AT disruptive-analysis DOT com.

Monday, June 01, 2015

Last week, the Belgian
authorities tried
to claim that Skype is a telecoms "operator" and should comply
with a similar set of laws to fixed and mobile telcos, especially around
data-retention and lawful interception.

The Indian regulator TRAI has
been undertaking a consultation about whether so-called "OTTs" should
be somehow "regulated". (TRAI's consultation document is one of the most woefully-written and
factually incorrect pieces of official literature I've ever read).

Slightly different but in the
same general domain, the UK Government is looking at ways to limit the use of
encryption and anonymity with Internet communications services, again to
collect metadata. (Sidenote: I think some of the proposals are rather
technically ignorant and will get sidelines - and it's worth noting the UK
remains one of a dwindling set of places without either official ID cards, nor
a requirement to register SIM cards).

A major principle that keeps
cropping up is that regulators, telcos and governments assert that services such as
Skype and WhatsApp are somehow "equivalent" to traditional phone calls
or SMS, and therefore should attract similar regulation.

This also intersects with
another set of regulatory pushes (notably by Telefonica's increasingly shrill
& incoherent policy team) to try to force interoperability onto 3rd-party
communications apps. Sometimes calling it "platform neutrality" this
seems to be a transparent attempt to reduce competition from new
voice/video/messaging apps by dis-allowing "walled gardens". Given
that the only likely medium for mass interop is the PSTN (and E.164 numbers),
this is a blatantly defensive move to ensure the old phone network remains at
the centre in future. It's unworkable, but unfortunately the current EU
Commissioners seem more keen than their predecessors to try to implement
stupid/unworkable ideas from the telco lobbyists.

Yet this is all very rearward-looking. The most successful future
communications apps are not going to be yet more "free standalone
messaging" services that look like SMS or WhatsApp, nor "cheap
generic VoIP calling" ones that emulate Skype.

Those ships have sailed
already. It's another reason why most telcos' "IP communicator" apps will fail, especially if based on lower-than-lowest common denominators like RCS.

Instead, any new winners are
going to be unique in some way - features like disappearing messages
(SnapChat), blending realtime 2-way voice with asynchronous (eg Talko),
embedded voice/video as a secondary feature in other social or business apps
(probably with WebRTC), or with a strong contextual-comms element (using the
user's physical status or intended purpose).

The interesting thing here is that not only would these be differentiated but it would also seem impossible, or at least much harder, to
claim (note: I'm not a lawyer) that these are "equivalent to the
phone service".

I also think existing services need to assert their "non-equivalence" much more vehemently - and point to the lack of innovation in telephony and SMS over decades.

Regulators should not be accepting telcos' arguments that they need to cross-subsidise network investments with profits from over-priced, near-obsolete services.

In the Skype case, I'd say
that one option Microsoft has in Belgium is to ditch the interconnection to the
PSTN, and possibly move to a video-only model. Both would indicate that it is
not a "phone service" but something entirely different. Given that
there is no successful telco video-calling service (nor, with RCS & ViLTE
as proposals, will there ever be) it would be much harder for the
authorities to claim equivalence.

A more
interesting defence of Skype's uniqueness could come from analysis of the
proportion of calls preceded by a messaging session. In my view, the
user experience of Skype is very different to the PSTN, as it is not based
around unexpected, interruptive calls, but is instead an "escalation"
method of rendezvous and arrangement. You use presence, chat with IM, and then
say "OK for a call?". That is different to traditional comms
experiences.

In fact, I'd argue that
designing a new service to be too unique & differentiated to meaningfully
interoperate with the PSTN or SMS means that:a) It stands a chance of
success, against 100s of "me too" apps and installed bases of 500m+
for entrenched competitors.b) It will be harder to
capture with pernicious regulations and telco lobbying, as it's clearly
something new, and not just a cheaper substitute for protected legacy services.

Having given this a lot of
thought, I've reached the following conclusions:

New communications apps
SHOULD NOT interop with phone calls (like SkypeOut or iMessage) if at all possible. If they do,
they risk being classified as "similar" to regulated services.

Avoid using E.164 phone
numbers as identifiers as possible, for similar reasons

Ensure that user behaviour
and features are very clearly distinct from traditional "calls" or
SMS, to the degree that "interoperability" is meaningless

Concentrate on
communications-as-a-feature rather than as a standalone service, unless it is a
completely unique and differentiated format. WebRTC is the likely key enabler. (Click here for my research report)

Create "clear blue
water" between legacy phone-calls / messages by using contextual
communications capabilities that cannot be replicated in traditional telco
service. Focus on how, and why a specific instance is occurring, and use external data to help reach the desired outcome.

Where there is a specific
business need for interop, avoid using 3GPP/telco standards wherever possible
(SMS, SS7, IMS, RCS) and use the web or proprietary mechanisms instead.

As a reminder, I'm running a workshop on Contextual Communications on June 15th in London, along with Martin Geddes. Sign up here.

Disruptive Analysis Workshops

- Mobile broadband traffic management strategies- Technology and market evolution- Business model development & unique propositions- Pre-launch feedback on new products and services- Business plan due diligence- Leadership team development